At the start JP says that he “acts as if God exists” while not explaining what he means by God, having just said that he does not know what the questioner means by “God”. That is the same BS that all apologists excrete. We ask them for their definition of god and they insist we give them an explanation of the thing we do not believe exists. He claims that the question “does not work on multiple levels of analysis” but leaves it at that. Another BS statement. What analysis of it has he done?

He then claims that because he “acts as if God exist”, that he has adequately answered the question. At this point he seems to be talking of a deist god or of the “God of Nature” in the sense that Spinoza did. He immediately then talks about the “divinity of Christ” so he has started to define what he means by “god” without realizing it. He means the “Christian God” so he has just answered that “binary question” that he stated 40 seconds earlier that he did not “like to answer” in case he boxed himself in. He has just boxed himself in by moving from the deism to theism, which is a very binary position.

Then he claims that by not being able to define “divinity” and “Christ” that we are left with another set of “very very difficult questions”. No, they are not. If JP acts as if the Christian God is real, that “He” actually exists, as he has just stated, then it is a simple question. You must know and believe that Christ is the son of this god and that he is divine. That is core to believing that the Christian God exists.

He then waffles on about the “logos” and “transcendence” before claiming that he personally “feels” that there is “sufficient evidence” to conclude that “Christ was an historical figure”. Just another apologist confusing “evidence” with “argument”. It would be nice to hear something original but this is the same crap they all use. It might be a different color but it smells the same.

Next he claims that he does not believe in the resurrection of Christ because there is no clear account of it. So he is now wondering if the historical figure he “feels” may have existed actually came back from the dead. WTF? He has “sufficient evidence” to believe Christ was a real figure but not enough evidence to believe he rose from the dead even thought the accounts of both are in the same section of the same book? A theist who picks and chooses the parts he wants to believe? Yeah, nothing new here either.

Then he drops a few “deepities” such as “Bring oneself completely into alignment” or “We don’t understand the world very well” or “We don’t know how an individual could completely master the world”. All bullshit statements not related to the question and which should only ever be printed on coarse tissue paper for theologians to wipe themselves with.

At least he is later honest enough to admit he is unsure about the truth of the resurrection which his friend has said is core to the Christian faith.

– he’s talking about bringing oneself into alignment with the Logos, by which he means the rational word of God, i.e. reality. Bringing oneself into alignment with reality? Psychologically and physically, with compassion? That’s surely a wise thing to do.

Simon, i think you have demonstrated in the microcosm what is happening with many of JP’s followers. They interpret his vague and ambiguous utterances in a way that is consistent with their thinking. And having confirmed their bias they think…wow that fucker is spot on.

Wow. I took away something completely different from what he says. But that’s probably because I have watched many of his academic lectures and I understand how he sees the world – from a clinical psychologist perspective and everything that comes out of his mouth ever has to be understood in framework to his profession. I’ll have to post a more detailed explanation later but honestly that’s not at all how I saw it.

@Bellen – The word “Ultracrepidarianism” I used earlier is a good definition of JP. Just because he has expertise in the field of clinical psychology does not mean he is qualified to speak with authority on religion. Yes, he can offer his opinion but that is all it is – his subjective opinion. I have spoken with or listened to many apologists over the years and he ranks among the poorest of them. He is an amateur at it because it is new to him.

I actually find it strange that someone who lectures on the subject of psychology has such a poor grasp of what it means to hold a subjective belief or have an understanding of how people acquire religious beliefs,via confirmation bias, group think or even how geography determines the god people believe in. Most of what he says is “woo”.

If this is the level he has reached (at his age and given his job) then he has not understood the nature of the “cognitive assent” needed to profess holding a belief in “god”. This is Room 101 undergrad or even high school stuff. He MUST understand these basis concepts of psychology. That makes me suspicious of him. I am all for hearing dangerous ideas that challenge any current viewpoints or worldviews but he is not up to it if he really does not understand those basis concepts. If he does he is a charlatan, if he does not he is unqualified to teach. Either way I am not too bothered. I have heard enough to have no intellectual respect for him. He is a disappointment to me. I will still go to hear him next month but only because I suspect that Sam Harris will be better prepared for the debate and that I may get to ask JP a question myself.